In the introduction to this series, I tried to explain briefly why the KJV Only debate is so important: KJV Onlyists are framing the issue as a matter of faith. By faith, you must believe the KJV is the only completely faithful Bible today. And a rejection of the KJVO position is a rejection of faith. In short, you must really be, despite claims to the contrary, someone who prizes human reason over faith in God’s Word.

In the face of such claims, this debate becomes important. If true, any non KJVO Christians are not much better than Bible deniers like Bart Ehrman. If false, these claims are at the least very wrong headed, and they have the potential to lead many astray. Because of these claims, KJV Onlyism has often caused severe divisions in the Body of Christ, harming institutions, fellowships, churches, and even families.

Having set the stage, let me now detail my plan for this series. In a nutshell, I want to show how Scripture applies to this whole debate. To do this, I want to examine the Scriptural arguments marshalled by KJV Onlyists for their position. I also plan on showing how Scripture both supports and teaches the non KJVO position. And then I want to look to the Bible to see what else we can find that will speak to the debate as a whole.

This post will attempt to detail the main Scriptural arguments that are said to support or teach the KJV Only position. Right here near the top, I should briefly define what I mean by “KJV Only”. The KJV Only position declares that the KJV is the only Bible version that English-speaking people should use. Some advocates of the position would downplay the importance of knowing Greek and Hebrew for Bible study, and strictly stick to the English of the KJV. Others, take a more moderate approach and prefer the Greek and Hebrew texts presumed to underly the KJV. But since their textual choices are guided by the choices the KJV translators made, “KJV Only” is an apt descriptor.

The arguments I will detail here are those made by the moderates. I myself was a convinced KJVO moderate for several years, and so this position is foremost in my mind as I write these posts. While there are many other arguments for the KJVO position, this post centers on those which are said to provide the position’s Scriptural basis.

The above chart is an attempt to express visibly the chief Biblical arguments for the KJVO position. As I walk you through the chart, I will be referring to the arguments or statements by color. The orange statements, are all said to be taught explicitly by Scripture. Thus you will see a dark black arrow pointing from the Bible to those arguments. Some of those statements are also supported by hollow arrows. These represent logical arguments flowing from the Scriptural teaching. For instance, a perfectly inerrant inspiration is claimed to be useless without a perfect preservation. This argument is not a Scriptural teaching, per se, but is considered a “corollary” of a Scriptural argument. So KJVO advocates claim that perfect preservation is taught both by clear Scriptural teaching, and by the neccessary corollary of inspiration.

Other colored arguments are not explicitly affirmed in Scripture. The purple ones are very closely related to Scriptural affirmations, however. Everything above the dotted line represents the Scriptural frame of reference that KJVO-ists take to the evidence at hand. So what is above the line shapes their presuppostional approach to the debate. Everything below the line represents successive logical arguments and deductions made by KJVO-ists. Given these deductions, other conclusions follow with the end result of separation over this issue.

Now that I’ve walked through the chart, let me briefly walk through the arguments. Before doing so, let me make clear that on several of these poinst, non KJV Onlyists would happily agree. But we will get into the non KJVO position later. So again, what follows will be my attempt to argue for the KJVO position following their reasoning.

The Bible explicitly teaches its own inerrancy and (plenary, verbal) inspiration [Perfect Inspiration]. The Bible also explicitly teaches the perfect preservation of that perfect inspiration. 2 other Biblical lines of reasoning are made for perfect preservation. First, a perfect inspiration is meaningless without a perfect preservation. The second line of reasoning is twofold. It is assumed that since each word and letter was inspired perfectly, not having total certainty about those words and letters would leave us with a Bible lacking authority. And since God gave the Bible to be our authority, He must needs preserve each word and letter perfectly to preserve that authority. [This is what is meant by the purple statement in between Perfect Inspiration and Perfect Preservation.]

The Bible also teaches that all the words of the Bible will be accessible to God’s people always. This idea is also supported logically by perfect preservation, for if God took the trouble to preserve His words perfectly, then surely he would make them accessible too (otherwise that would seem to defeat the whole point). This point also finds support in the logical arguments for perfect preservation. If perfect preservation is required for there to be value in and authority from perfect inspiration, then perfect accessibility is required too. Perfect accessibility, then, leads inevitably to the assumption that all of God’s words would generally be identifiable. In other words, these accessible words would be easy to spot. They would likely be in one manuscript for the most part, or in one manuscript tradition or in one printed text or Bible version. Even if they’re not all in one manuscript, it should be fairly easy to identify where they are, since they are perfectly accessible.

Finally, the Bible teaches that God’s people will generally just receive God’s Word. They don’t question it or judge it, or determine that it should be God’s Word. They receive it and recognize it.

These Biblical arguments predispose the KJV Onlyists to make the following conclusions based on the textual evidence we see. The Greek Textus Receptus (TR) and Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) were received by God’s people. They have been and are accessible, and obviously they were preserved. Therefore, the TR and MT are the only true Bible. Or, only Bibles translated from the TR and MT would be true Bibles. Hence, we should separate from anyone who rejects our belief that the KJV (as the only faithful and received Bible translated from the TR and MT) is the only true Bible.

This was obviously a reduction of complex argumentation. In future posts, I will give the Biblical passages which KJV Onlyists use to support each point, and I will deal with the exegesis of them. I also plan to test the Scriptural arguments and logical assumptions given above. So stay tuned for future installments of “The Bible and the KJV Only Debate”.

Share this:

Comments

From a quick read, you have some problems in representing the position. First, our position is that God has kept every Word and all of them, not necessarily in one edition, but that they have been generally accessible to God’s people of every generation. Second, it is general accessibility. I’ve not used the word perfect nor heard anyone else use it, although I believe they have had access to every Word. Third, the churches recognized the Words, i.e. settled on the Words. Fourth, the Bible is perfect. Fifth, there have been textual corruptions. Satan has an ongoing attack on God’s Words. Sixth, this is historic theology, that is, this is the historic position of God’s churches.

You have it wrong on the inspiration is meaningless without preservation. I think we have to be clear here. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible in Scripture clearly implies verbal, plenary preservation. The two are tied together.

I used “perfect accessibility” to simplify this statement: all of God’s words have been accessible. Arguments from Matt. 4:4 are covered by this idea, I would think.

When I use the phrase “TR = Received”, I was thinking of the “Received Mindset” and the idea that churches received it. When I get into the study at more depth, that is what I’ll say your position believes.

Your fifth and sixth points seem a little less intimately tied into the Scriptural argumentation. I may deal with them in this series, but again the series will primarily focus on what I think Scripture teaches and then evalueate your position’s beliefs in light of Scripture.

I do want to actually represent the position, accurately. But also your particular form of KJV Onlyism is not the only variety out there. When you read other books on the issue, I think these are the main Scriptural arguments used.

I don’t care what books say. This is what the Bible teaches. Also, I was waiting for your position, not a revision of our position. You said you would give us your position; we’ve been waiting, and we still haven’t seen it. It should be easy, especially for someone as skilled at cutting and pasting as you are.

An explanation of our position FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW is part and parcel of almost every MVO book or article. It is perfect for arguing a strawman. Then we don’t get a positive presentation on preservation, but a criticism of what we say it says. I would be interested in finding any MVO that has said anything on it, especially in any kind of developed way. Have you actually found anything? I’ve never seen anything except a criticism of our positions. That ought to be tell-tale.

I am not so naive to think that you surely want to present our position accurately. Why not just let me present our position and then you present yours. I could do a great job at presenting your position for you. You wouldn’t like it.

I would venture to guess that your criticism that not much has been said by the MVO camp parallels early church history, in which the church developed creeds only after the persistent onslaught of various and distinct doctrinal views that began purcolating. I think such is the case today with respect to the KJVO position that has grown and infiltrated many churches in the last 1/2+ century. Most MVO’s don’t even realize there are folks like yourself out there advocating one Bible only. I also think (and this is from experience) that there is NO Practical impact on Christians who use good translations (not paraphrases), so why bother fighting a skermish that does nothing but distract people from the real business of building and growing God’s kingdom. I say this as one who belongs to a very confessional church (Presbyterian), not as some “emergent” who doesn’t concern himself with doctrinal and theological precision.

I don’t know you. But your words are on the spiteful side. Sir, if you want to debate… do not put aside your manners. Approach your Brother as if to win him. I went to your blog and saw your criticism of the Pyromaniac’s site.

Here’s what you said- “They say they love Spurgeon, but Spurgeon would absolutely cuff them around if he were alive. I guess that makes them Spurgeon wannabees. They will go on and on with dialogue with leftists and Charismatics, but if you are to the right of them, don’t plan on a conversation; just get prepared for ridicule.”

“Thou art the man” Pastor. You do the very same things. I have been viewing the debate from afar, and your hostility jumps off the screen. You told Bob in #3- “It should be easy, especially for someone as skilled at cutting and pasting as you are.” That is an un-necessary cut Pastor.

Your mode of argumentation is also hard to follow. You say at the start of #3- “I donâ€™t care what books say. This is what the Bible teaches.” Then a paragraph later your say…”I would be interested in finding any MVO that has said anything on it, especially in any kind of developed way. Have you actually found anything?” WHICH IS IT REV.? Do you care what other books say, or not? Do you only read your Bible, or do you actually care what other scholars may say? It’s a faulty form of argumentation to say “I don’t care what books say” when someone quotes an author, and then to demand a paragraph later, some documentation of what other scholars say. It’s dishonest at the worst and sloppy logic at its best. Tone it down Pastor, and make a good argument.

Criticism of my writing accepted. I do get sloppy writing on here at times, not taking the time to self-edit. My lack of clear references to pronounds can make the writing confusing to read. I should slow down some when I’m doing it.

Now, my opinion on my style. I am harsh with Bob at times, but since you would take a similar position with him, you don’t see how he deals with independent, separatist Baptists. Since he started this blog, he has misrepresented them in the worst sort of way and in mocking tones, often using strawman arguments. Spite, for your information, is not what it is—on the harsh side, yes. You’ll see the same thing from them here. Bob knows that spirited discussion attracts more traffic—he knew that when he chose to bring the KJV issue here. There’s much more I can say, but I don’t want to rehash things I’ve said many times here.

To clarify the last paragraph, I am saying that I care about what the Bible teaches—Biblical presuppositions. I don’t care what some book says when it doesn’t use any Biblical presuppositions, just criticizes another position.

Steve, this last paragraph deals with what you are talking about, but I glad to hear that you understand the MVO have no Biblical theology of preservation they present. They say they believe it, but their normal fare is to attack KJV positions. And Steve, men have written on this issue in the past. They take the position I and other KJV men espouse, which I have been communicating on here. Some of what you have said is true about this not being a battle up until a certain point, that being the 1881 Revised Version. That is the first very widespread attack on the traditional text of Scripture. Gotta go, but have a good day.

Kent,
You said..”Now, my opinion on my style. I am harsh with Bob at times, but since you would take a similar position with him,(Ad hominem- I guess since I’m reformed, I’m blind? is that your point?) you donâ€™t see how he deals with independent, separatist Baptists” (Red Herring)The classical term is ignoratio elenchi, â€˜ignorance of the refutation.â€™ This is another device to avoid or ignore the issue.

If you don’t like what I said… that’s quite alright. If you don’t agree with what I said, then that is fine as well. But to use faulty logic laced with fallacious arguments like the “Red Herring” and “Ad Hominem” is unnecessary, much like your tone and harshness as I have previously pointed out.

Pastor- I’d rather you tell me that I’m stupid or simply don’t like my post then use fallacious arguments. Pastor- I spoke clearly and gently, you attacked, and changed the subject. The subject was your harshness, your unclear arguments. The subject was not Bob.

I will resign from this thread now, to avoid any further distractions from the argument.

Bob- I’m sorry, I had to say something, I couldn’t take it. A good discussion and argument is like water for a thirsty soul, but the harsh and attacking and lack of clear argumentation was enough for me.

KJV Prov 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly,lest thou also be like unto him.

Have you considered adding that graphic to the wikipedia article? I think it does a wonderful job of summarizing the argument. If you don’t know how to and email me I’d be happy to do the addition on wikipedia.

[…] with how the Bible directly impacts the KJV Only debate.Â We started by giving a review of how KJV Onlyists often claim their position is supported by the Bible.Â We then moved on to discuss what the Bible says about inspiration briefly, and moved on to the […]

Reforming fundamentalism through reform theology. what is reform theology? The bible is the basis of all theology. man you’re becoming wiser than God. heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away. My bible is my theology and I shall pass it on to my my children and grandchildren by the grace of God

Reformed theology is a name given to certain biblical doctrines relating to salvation. They are known as the 5 solas, and the 5 points of Calvinism. We are justified by grace alone (sola – alone), on the basis of faith alone, in Christ’s work on the cross alone, to the glory of God alone, and on the authority of Scripture alone. All men are completely corrupted by sin, and stand guilty before God who sovereignly and lovingly chooses some to have faith in Him, awakens them to life by His Spirit, and makes the atonement of Christ effective for them. For all of these people, God will work so that they do not fall from grace but finally persevere.

All of these doctrines have Scriptural basis. I dare say you summarize your doctrines in other ways than Reformed Theology. Summarizing Biblical doctrines is a helpful way of learning scripture it is not meant to supplant Scripture in our lives.